Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

“I never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me.” — Robert A. Heinlein

With tech giants YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter restricting and censoring conservative ideas and opinions, the emergence of the court-sanctioned right to not be offended has usurped the First Amendment.

The right not to be offended doesn’t appear in the Constitution, yet it triumphs over constitutional freedoms and common sense, even though offending people is unavoidable.

The most fundamental freedom Americans have is freedom of speech, but Americans have taken it for granted and have allowed the cultural Marxists to co opt their God-given freedoms on which this nation was built.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” — Benjamin Franklin

Stossel: Glenn Beck vs. Big Tech  

Read Full Post »

This guy at the zolnareport.com is right; the leftist elites have the power. Our 1st Amendments are eroding quickly. Brighteon.com had to comply with Australia’s demands or the video site would’ve been shut down in 12 to 24 hrs. For more information, see his video “They Have the Power” at https://www.brighteon.com/6018149278001


I.M. Kane

Like me at https://usa.life/misterjkane

Follow me at https://gab.com/imkane

Watch my videos at https://www.brighteon.com/channel/imkane

Read Full Post »

Back in the day when leftists masqueraded as liberals, they’d often say, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Although the aphorism’s meaning was lost on them, it reverberated within their “echo chambers” and gave them the pretense of magnanimity, which they seemed to relish at the time.

Today the leftists have bolted from the closet and have abandoned all pretense of embracing the protection of free speech. They’ve taken off the mask of liberalism, and discarded it along with their “cherished” aphorism. Now they are leading the effort to squelch freedom of speech, demanding that ideas and opinions they deem insensitive and hateful be censored and silenced on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Being hardcore leftists themselves, the CEOs of these social media giants have been more than happy to comply with their wishes.

First Stormfront, a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi group lost its web address of more than two decades beginning the “crackdown against hate sites.” Whimpers chimed over the Internet, but not many on the right gave serious attention to what was happening.

Next the social media giants collectively set their sights on Alex Jones, which garnered more attention and brought their assault on free speech to the forefront. Although they saw Jones as an easy target, he was the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” (albeit more Kuku than canary) warning Americans that the social media giants had joined forces and were out to purge the Internet from politically “inappropriate” ideas and “offensive” speech.

But the giants weren’t concerned because they viewed Jones as the tin-foil hat poster boy for offensive, insensitive, and hateful speech. They surmised that the mainstream conservative and evangelical opinion makers would show little sympathy for Jones and wouldn’t make much noise about the violation of his free speech rights. And they guessed right because few of the mainstream talkers and pundits on the right voiced any genuine concern for what was happening to Jones.

As they say, the camel doesn’t stop once its nose is under the tent, so the social media giants went after more undesirable voices that they considered low-hanging fruit. They banned Dennis Prager, Franklin Graham, some lesser known Christian ministries for posting “unsuitable” content on their platforms. And now it’s become a daily occurrenceas more and more evangelicals, conservatives, classic liberals, and patriots are rounded up and shadow banned by Twitter, censored by Facebook, and terminated by YouTube for expressing ideas and opinions that the giants claim violate their community standards regarding bullying and hate speech.

America needs a kid who’s good with a sling shot because the lauded movers and shakers and heralded opinion makers with the loudest voices and biggest megaphones on the right are either intimidated, afraid, or controlled and won’t stand up and fight the giants. They know what’s been going on, yet they constantly promote the social media giants’ platforms on their shows encouraging people to join the platforms and to like and follow them when they go there. They’re appeasers feeding the giants hoping to be the last ones censored and banned.

Conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on social media find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. If they continue to express contrary thoughts, ideas, and opinions, they will be purged. If they self-censor and stop posting and tweeting their “offensive and hateful” thoughts, ideas, and opinions and go along to get along, some social media friend, social justice warrior, or LGBTQ and sometimes Y-stapo member will uncover something offensive they tweeted or posted years before they got their mind right and they’ll be given a strike or a time out or some other childish reminder that failure to communicate means time in the box.

Yet something must be done to halt the attack on free speech and to keep the giants from purging all their political and religious enemies from their platforms under the pretense of promoting inappropriate ideas and expressing offensive speech. Although the solution may prove to be easier said than done, it will solve the problem, and it doesn’t require government intervention.

If the majority of account-holding conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would en masse join the giants’ competitors such as Gab, USA Life, and Brighteon.com and ask their friends on social media to join them there, it’s likely Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would backpedal their censorship and revise their speech code guidelines and community standards.

If the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and conscience clause, and the Founders’ belief in God-given rights and individual liberty mean anything to conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots in this country, this proposed solution will be easier done than said. What’ll happen next only God knows. “I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. … Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.”

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

Judge Who Jailed Kentucky Clerk Has History of Imposting Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools

By Jerry A. Kane

The federal judge who held Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt and ordered her to jail for refusing to sign marriage licenses has on two occasions denied Christian students in Kentucky public schools their First Amendment rights by ordering them to undergo re-education training promoting the homosexual lifestyle against their religious objections.

Federal District Judge David Bunning

   Federal District Judge David Bunning

In 2003, Federal District Judge David Bunning ordered Boyd County education officials to implement training, which mandated school staff and students undergo diversity education principally “devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.”

A number of students objected to being forced to watch a gaystapo propaganda video denouncing Christian views that opposed homosexuality as wrongheaded and proclaiming homosexuality as a safe, healthy, and fixed lifestyle that cannot be changed.

When it was discovered that students would be punished if they didn’t undergo the training their parents brought in the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal organization, which sued the Boyd County Board of Education.

In 2006, the gaystapo tool was back at it. Once again he tried to force Christian students to watch a gaystapo propaganda video promoting the homosexual lifestyle, and denying Christian students the ability to opt-out of the indoctrination training. Bunning ruled that an opt-out was unnecessary because the training didn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs.

Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.

For more on the story, see Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality to Be Re-Educated.

Read Full Post »

Freedom and liberty are lost when Second Amendment supporters and NRA Bots no longer recognize that the First Amendment must be protected above all else and defended with greater zeal than the Second.

The NRA and their Bots fail to realize that unless they support the First Amendment they are aiding and abetting the totalitarian progressives in restricting the religious freedom of business owners and the political speech of grassroots organizations.

Once political correctness negates the First Amendment and religious conscience and offensive speech are abolished, the Second Amendment is rendered meaningless because nothing of significance is left to protect.



This 8:05 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Thursday, April 17, 2014. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

To see the full two-hour show, go to the Ought to be Headlines web page. Join the resistance and make a difference before it’s too late.

Read Full Post »

The First Amendment is the most important amendment to protect, but it’s not being championed like the Second Amendment has been.

Without the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is meaningless and so is the Bill of Rights for that matter.

What makes America exceptional is the right to freedom of conscience, and when Americans lose that right, America loses what’s made it exceptional in the eyes of the world.




This 8:45 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Tuesday, April 15, 2014. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

To see the full two-hour show, go to the Ought to be Headlines web page. Join the resistance and make a difference before it’s too late

Read Full Post »

This 23:43 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Thursday, December 26, 2013. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

See the full two-hour show on the Ought to be Headlines web page, and the join the resistance. Make a difference before it’s too late.


Read Full Post »

This 22:58 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Tuesday, March 11, 2014. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

See the full two-hour show on the Ought to be Headlines web page, and the join the resistance. Make a difference before it’s too late.


Read Full Post »

Such a Petty, Mean-Spirited Lawsuit

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales. 

Krebs went to the war from a Methodist college in Kansas,” and now the highest court in the land has taken up the case of an 8-foot white cross atop Sunrise Rock memorializing U.S. soldiers who fought in that war.


After World War I, several veterans moved to the Californian desert as a respite for their emotional and physical wounds. In 1934, they erected the white cross memorial to honor their fallen comrades who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

They chose the memorial site because the sun casts a shadow on Sunrise Rock at a certain time of day that resembles a WWI doughboy.  The memorial stood serene for more than 75 years until the Park Service was asked and refused to build a Buddhist sanctuary nearby.

That’s when Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) board member, got his knickers in a knot and decided the government had violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religion over another.

Having firmly affixed his Catholic faith to his sleeve, the PEER zealot smartly marched over to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer’s Union), and they joined together in a lawsuit to tear down the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. 

After the U.S. Government acquired the land on which the memorial sits as part of the Mojave Desert Federal Preserve, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling. A year later, Congress voted to trade the acre of land containing the memorial to the veterans, who had maintained it for decades, for five acres.

Even though public military memorials and cemeteries have been adorned for decades with crosses and religious symbols and the one-for-five acre deal satisfied both the government and the veterans, the ire of the Park Service pantywaist and surrogate remained. They declared the deal intolerable, and persisted in filing motions to tear down the memorial and overturn the land transfer.

In 2000, the Southern California ACLU announced the cross would be down within the next few months, but Congress voted not to allocate federal funds to remove it, an action that drew a lawsuit from the ACLU.

In 2002, a federal district court ruled that the memorial violated the “wall of separation” that the Constitution maintains between church and state; consequently, Congress attempted to transfer the land underneath the cross to a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars by using a clause in the Department of Defense budget, but the district court ruled against it.

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling to remove the cross in spite of numerous appeals from the U.S. Justice Department.


As if to commemorate an ACLU victory, a federal judge ordered the cross covered and hidden from view while the case is on appeal. A curious-looking plywood box, resembling a condemned building, now sits atop a desolate rock symbolizing the triumph of one man’s intolerance over the sacrifices of those who inspired the memorial. 

Currently, the Supreme Court’s nine justices are divided on the issue along progressive and conservative lines. Progressive justices view the Constitution as a living, breathing document emanating meanings from ethereal penumbras of the actual text, which often contradict the plain understanding of the words themselves; and conservative justices focus on a strict interpretation of the text of the Constitution based on the originally intended meaning of the text.

When it comes to the Establishment Clause, progressive justices have interpreted the emanations from the clause to mean government hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular; whereas conservative justices have interpreted the clause to mean government neutrality toward religion and accommodation for Christianity in particular.

However, the final battle won’t be won until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and that could take weeks. It’s also quite possible the high court will ignore the broader question of whether the presence of the cross on a federal preserve establishes a religion, and will address the narrower question of whether Congress was right to transfer the land on which the cross sits to private ownership.

Clearly, the PEER gent and the ACLU know the military’s long history of using a cross as marker for the war dead of all faiths and as a symbol to represent honor, courage, and sacrifice. They have not employed such a Herculean effort for nearly ten years just to tear down an unadorned cross in some remote area of the Mojave Desert; theirs is a sinister purpose, to put an end to the principles of religious liberty as grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Voltaire’s words combined with those of the Preamble to the California Constitution, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom,” serve as a sad reminder for the cosmic irony in this a petty, mean-spirited lawsuit.

Read Full Post »